[Grammar] adjective clause

[Ashiuhto]

Which is acceptable in the blank, is or am?

Don’t worry. I, who _________ your close friend, will be always on your side.

 

[SirGod]

*Not a teacher

Don’t worry. I, who is your close friend, will be always on your side. - who = subject

 

[SirGod]

*Not a teacher

Sorry, Gillnetter, but I don't understand why would it be "am" and not "is". It is an apposition, the subject is "who" and the verb is "is". We treat "who is your..." as "that guy who is your...", don't we?

 

[5jj]

There is little agreement on this one. Swan suggests:

"... the verb is normally third person, especially in informal style.
It's me that's responsible for the organisation.
(More formal: It is I who am responsible...)
You're the one that knows where to go. (NOT ...the one that know...)

Swan, Michael (2005) Practical English Usage, (3rd edn), Oxford: OUP.

I avoid the problem by not using this construction with first and second person constructions.

 

[philo2009]

*Not a teacher

Sorry, Gillnetter, but I don't understand why would it be "am" and not "is". It is an apposition, the subject is "who" and the verb is "is". We treat "who is your..." as "that guy who is your...", don't we?

English relative pronouns take the person and number of their antecedent.

Unlike the interrogative pronoun 'who' (with which you are no doubt confusing it), the relative pronoun has no inherent number or person of its own.

'Am' is the only possible form here in educated standard English.

 

[Barb_D]

As far as I'm concerened, these constructions read and sound like a hot mess no matter what you do.

"Who am" alone sounds horrible. "I is" feels horrible, even with the "who" between. Mixing them with "I, who is" OR "I, who am" both sound horrible.

Like 5jj says, just rewrite the darn thing. I'm your best friend, and I will...
I am the one who is your best friend, and I will ... As your best friend, I will...

 

[TheParser]

Which is acceptable in the blank, is or am?

Don’t worry. I, who _________ your close friend, will be always on your side.

NOT A TEACHER


(1) The great Professor George O. Curme in his 1931 masterpiece

A Grammar of the English Language (Vol. 2, pages 230 - 231)

answers your question:

I, who am your friend, tell you so.

(a) am is the first person singular agreeing with its subject who,

which agrees with its antecedent I.


Respectfully yours,


James


P.S. I know what a serious and courteous student you are, so I should

like to add this:

It is I who am your best friend.

The great professor explains that in theory and historically, some

speakers in the past said: It is I who is your best friend.

The "is" IS correct -- in theory. That is:

It (who is your best friend)

is I.

But, as you know, languages are very democratic. Even

dictatorships cannot stop the common people from changing

the "rules." So today one would say "It is I who am your best

friend."

 

[birdeen's call]

Probably the most famous occurrence of "who am" is that in Exodus 3:14 (in some translations).

 

[5jj]

NOT A TEACHER
(1) The great Professor George O. Curme [...] answers your question:

I, who am your friend, tell you so."

Parser, Curme might have answered the question for a speaker in 1931. We need a far more modern authority to confirm what is acceptable in 2011.

The British National Corpus, with 9/1 citations for I who/that am, 1/0 for I who/that is and 4/0 for me who/that is suggests that I who am is more common; it also suggests that me who is is pretty common. Purists might object to me who is, but it accounts for over 26% of the (admittedly not many) citations. philo's claim that "'Am' is the only possible form here in educated standard English" may be true of formal writing. I am not so sure it is true in normal conversation - even among educated speakers..

 

[5jj]

Probably the most famous occurrence of "who am" is that in Exodus 3:14 (in some translations).

The normal translation is "I am who I am", where I is clearly the subject of am.

 

[birdeen's call]

The normal translation is "I am who I am", where I is clearly the subject of am.

I'm not sure what you mean by a normal translation. Books have been written on the proper way of translating this. Here's an example with "I am who am" .

 

[5jj]

I'm not sure what you mean by a normal translation. Books have been written on the proper way of translating this. Here's an example with "I am who am" .

Sorry - lazy writing on my part. I had checked with this site, Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. - Online Bible Study Tools and found 15 translations giving "I am who I am" (5 with 'that I am' and 2 with 'what I am') and only one giving 'I am who am'.

 

[TheParser]

Parser, Curme might have answered the question for a speaker in 1931. We need a far more modern authority to confirm what is acceptable in 2011.

NOT A TEACHER


Sir:

The Red Cross once said that Ms. Florence Nightingale's "heroic

efforts on behalf of suffering humanity will be recognized and admired

by all ages as long as the world shall last."

*****

With the greatest respect and deepest humility, there are some of us

(be it 1931 or 2011) who believe that Professor George O. Curme's

brilliant efforts on the behalf of grammar devotees will be recognized and

admired by all ages as long as the English language shall last.


Respectfully yours,


James

 

[Barb_D]

And then there is Popeye's version.

 

[birdeen's call]

And then there is Popeye's version.

What is Popeye's version?

 

[SoothingDave]

What is Popeye's version?

I yam what I yam.

For what it's worth, I also learned "I am who am" for the Biblical reference.

 

[5jj]

With the greatest respect and deepest humility, there are some of us (be it 1931 or 2011) who believe that Professor George O. Curme's brilliant efforts on the behalf of grammar devotees will be recognized and admired by all ages as long as the English language shall last.

My respect for Curme may not be as great as your, but his Syntax is a well-thumbed book on my shelves. I have found it very useful indeed in my work on the changes over the years in English grammar.

However, when it comes to discussing whether or not something is acceptable in modern English, I cannot believe that there is any point in referring to a book that was written when talkies had been around for only two or three years, when many people still did not even have a wireless set, when television was only a dream in the minds of a few cranks, and when even the most prescient writers of science fiction had not thought of computers, the internet, nuclear weapons, global warming, etc. For Curme and most of his generation, 'nigger' was probably not an offensive word, and the idea of sexism in language would probably have been laughable. Some of what is now generally accepted in fairly formal writing would have been dismissed as semi-literate (at best) rubbish in Curme's day.

I value the writings of Curme, but then I value the writings of:

[FONT=&quot]Aristotle (d.322 BCE), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Arnauld & Lancelot (1660),[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ash (1763),[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Bullokar (1586,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cobbett (1823), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cooper (1685), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Daniel (1904), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Dionysius Thrax (c 140-100 BCE ,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Fowler (1906 and 1926 ), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Gildon & Brightland (1711), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Gowers (1954,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Greenwood[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (1737,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Hornby (1954) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jespersen (1909-1949, 1924, 1933), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Johnson (1755), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Kruisinga (1911), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lancelot & Arnauld (1660), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lowth (1762),[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Murray (1795), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Onion (1904,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Peile (1877), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Plato.( c428-347 BCE), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Poutsma (1926,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Priestley (1761) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Priscian (6th century), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Sweet (1891-8), [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Webster (1784,) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Wood (1954) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Zandvoort (1957) - and many others,

However, I don't use them when I discuss what is acceptable today.
[/FONT]

 

[mikelynn]

...well, I'm a bit baffled here, not being a native speaker. Of course it's I am and I am who I am, no doubt about that, but in the adjective/relative clause it sounds pretty good to me. Is it really so awfully incorrect? After all, the subject of the clause is who which can and often is treated as the third person singular. Not trying to criticize, just want to know more. Thanks MikeLynn

 

[5jj]

...well, I'm a bit baffled here, not being a native speaker. Of course it's I am and I am who I am, no doubt about that, but in the adjective/relative clause it sounds pretty good to me. Is it really so awfully incorrect? After all, the subject of the clause is who which can and often is treated as the third person singular. Not trying to criticize, just want to know more. Thanks MikeLynn

If you want to be formally correct, philo has given the answer. I have merely suggested that, for many speakers today, including some who most people would consider to be educated, breaking the rule is not a serious crime.

 

[mikelynn]

Thank you fivejedjon and let me rephrase it—if I wanted to be formally correct, am is the right choice, but in colloquial English is would be acceptable and, maybe, more common? Thanks for yours, and anybody else's, input